Ghosts of the Firemen

Sorry to hijack the thread - but this is related to the post about the tshirt.

I had to do it...
beamweaponsloldw3.jpg
 
Quote:
Jones paper was peer reviewed.
Not in the scientific sense of the word, it wasn't. Being "peer reviewed" doesn't mean "reviewed by some people you think are peers".
Click to expand...

Well the biggest problem is Jones gives no values for his calcuation. I might not understand the maths - but spotting the difference in the values (Load weights etc) Is the eaiser way for the lay man to understand the thinking
 
Alex Jones did not predict 9/11

28th Kingdom said:
Yea, the same Alex Jones who forecasted the events of 9/11:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8184253307321536024
Click to expand...

Point of order!

Alex Jones did not predict 9/11. This claim is as false as Alex's other weird statements.

(If you're unfamiliar with Alex Jones, take a gander at some of his astonishing beliefs. It's a real mind-blower.)

The truth is, Jones makes no prediction of anything whatsoever on his July 25, 2001 show.

He says, "Call the White House and tell them that, if there's any terrorism, we'll know it was you."

Note the conditional phrase "IF there's any terrorism." Jones is not making a prediction of anything, nor does he do so anywhere on the tape.

When Perry says "if I could have a date with J-Lo," he is not predicting that he will have a date with J-Lo. He's just daydreaming. A conditional phrase makes no statement about reality.

Alex makes lots of predictions, but he has never successfully predicted anything. He said Saddam Hussein had been taken to Cuba. He said the Administration was going to "roll [Osama] bin Laden out on ice" before the 2004 election. He said we were all going to be implanted with microchips, herded into "compact cities," force-vaccinated, and killed. He said there would be martial law. He said there would be a draft. He said money was being phased out. He said there would be foreign troops in the streets, etc., etc., etc.

Alex has been predicting more big domestic terror attacks ever since 9/11. That's six straight years of wrong predictions!

Here are more of Alex's incorrect prognostications:
http://perrylogan.org/Bogus Predictions.html

Alex's belief that he can predict the future is a common CT delusion. As you've probably noticed, conspiracy folks make predictions all the time--and never notice that they're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Anti-sophist said:
There is no evidence of molten dripping steel. None. Zero. Molten metal, yes (Aluminum mixed with oxides), steel, no.
Click to expand...

There's a reference of "dripping steel" in a newspaper interview with a firefighter called Joe "Toolie" O'Toole. The interview was published in the Philadelphia Enquirer in May 2002. There's a reliable (ie from a non-CT site) copy of the article here.

I think it is this that the Truthers are citing as proof that there was molten steel and so there had to be thermite. I see plenty of problems with this, however, this is what I posted in another thread about this:

maccy said:
Here's the relevant quote again:
Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
Click to expand...
source*: http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948

The first thing to note is that the beam is intact and solid enough to be pulled out of a pit by a crane (I suspect that crane may mean digger here - or at least something with jaws to clamp the girder). So the girder was hot but it wasn't liquid. If thermite was involved, how would it heat a girder evenly? Thermite gets very hot, but it tends to burn through metals before having much of a chance to conduct its heat into them. Likewise because the thermite reaction is over so quickly it's hardly sustained heat anyway.

The next thing to notice is this happened in February 2002 which is around 5 months after the buildings collapsed. Now a thermite reaction will release all its heat energy in a few seconds, so you're going to need some pretty efficient insulation to trap that heat for 5 months, especially when you consider that the thermite starts burning in a big airy building, according to the demolition hypothesis. So if the rubble pile can trap the heat from the dying seconds of a thermite reaction, isn't it equally plausible that it would contain pockets of instense heat resulting from smouldering hydrocarbon fires?

As far as the dripping is concerned, we've already established that the girder wasn't liquid so it's possible that the dripping was another metal (copper or aluminium perhaps) or even molten glass dripping off the steel as it was lifted out of the rubble. Also it is possible that the surface of part of the steel steel was hot enough to be partially melted (there's no reason to assume even heating like is a steel mill), possibly because its melting point was lowered due to a reaction with another substance, such as sulfur:
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
Click to expand...
From an analysis of a steel beam from WTC7 here: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Whatever the reason for the "dripping steel" really is (and, to be honest I think we can only guess) I think thermite/thermate ranks as one of the least likely explanations.

Edited to Add: In the absence of a verified transcript or an audio recording of what Mr O'Toole said we shouldn't assume that his words have been accurately reported. Many people who have been interviewed by newspapers can vouch for the inaccuracies that can creep into journalism. Even if Mr O'Neil is being reported accurately, we cannot necessarily trust his perception of the event - although it is interesting to note that he doesn't mention the girder as being suspicious or unexpected.


*I think it's worth reading the whole of this article to be reminded of how terrible that day and its aftermath were.
Click to expand...
 
You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.
Click to expand...

Aye, but both Edinburgh University and OveArup say that it would have collpsed anyway and have produced highly detailed technical cases to support their hypothesis...


....THAT YOU REFUSE TO RESPOND TO, YOU FRAUD!
 
28th Kingdom said:
You are right about that... NIST claimed the buildings wouldn't have collapsed from the impact damage and/or the ensuing fires without the dislodged fireproofing from the plane impacts.
Click to expand...

Architect said:
Aye, but both Edinburgh University and OveArup say that it would have collpsed anyway and have produced highly detailed technical cases to support their hypothesis...


....THAT YOU REFUSE TO RESPOND TO, YOU FRAUD!
Click to expand...


Quoted because I want to remind 28th Kingdom of his cowardice both in refusing to respond to this point and in putting so many people on his ignore list.

28th - the world doesn't believe your story, how are you going to convince it when you are such a coward?
 
maccy said:
Quoted because I want to remind 28th Kingdom of his cowardice both in refusing to respond to this point and in putting so many people on his ignore list.

28th - the world doesn't believe your story, how are you going to convince it when you are such a coward?
Click to expand...

Ah, but the sheer, unprecedented depths of his cowardice are sure to inspire awe in all who read his work!

Never before has such a coward been quite so craven! Not only to ignore posts the old fashioned way, but to employ the latest in technology to ignore posters! And not only does he ignore posts and posters, he ignore entire lines of argument, regardless of the source!

And he does it all over an anonymous channel of communication!

Truly his poltroonery has never before been matched. Such commitment to pusillanimity must surely convince a few other faint-hearted yellow-bellies!
 
Just musing on how anyone (even a CT'er) could believe Alex Jones when he claims the NIST says there were bombs in WTC 7.

If it were true:

GAME OVER.

CNN, FOX, BBC would have it on their front pages.

Bush would be hounded by reporters.

I would be in shock, same as when I saw the planes hit.

Shows how utterly clueless AJ's target audience is.
 
Well, I know that Mike Newman of NIST says flatly that bombs DIDN'T cause the collapse. But, then, Newman is merely a scientist; Jones is a genuine liar. We have to go with Jonesy, right 28IQ?
 
Worthwhile Project

I think that the vile picture appearing on 911blogger.com, "Ghosts of the Firemen," should be shown to some firemen and their reactions preserved on video. Would anyone care to help with this project? Gravy?

Jon Gold is attempting to ingratiate his band of cretins with first responders. His efforts need to be exposed.
 
Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.

YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.

Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?
 
pomeroo said:
I think that the vile picture appearing on 911blogger.com, "Ghosts of the Firemen," should be shown to some firemen and their reactions preserved on video. Would anyone care to help with this project? Gravy?

Jon Gold is attempting to ingratiate his band of cretins with first responders. His efforts need to be exposed.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of trying to find an appropriate way of posting a link to that entry here:

http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/index.php

and encouraging the posters of that community to make their feelings known on 911blogger.com

The "artist" that created this has a website here:

http://deesillustration.com/

and a large gallery of what he calls satire here:

http://www.dees2.com/sat1.html

although you will only laugh at its stupidity, unless you are too busy feeling ill.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.

YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
This is what NIST said:

NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)
 
28th Kingdom said:
Didn't I say Alex said NIST thinks bombs may have been used? It is in reference to WTC 7... and the fact that NIST is now considering explosives into their investigation. YES, that MEANS they think bombs may have been used.

YES THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS... if they didn't think bombs may have been used THAN THEY WOULDN'T investigate it.

It doesn't mean they believe bombs were used... THEY ARE SAYING they think it's possible that bombs may have been used.

Side Note: Maccy, yer on ignore... I don't put up with tyranny... isn't that obvious by now?
Click to expand...

Hooray! I'm on ignore! More cowardice from 28th!

If he could read this, he could respond to me pointing out that NIST only considering hypothetical blast scenarios for WTC7 to demonstrate what would have happened to the building in these hypothetical cases. By showing that the building did not behave in the way indicated by the blast hypotheses they will provide evidence that controlled demolition did not occur. In other words, they're doing it in an effort it get idiots like Alex Jones and 28th Kingdom to shut up.

Even if he could read this, I'm sure 28th wouldn't respond on this point - it's too challenging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom